I live a block away from this area, which...if you guys don't know...we turned our downtown into a pedestrian area, with parking garages and stuff scattered around the fringes, and it's super fuckin' rad. I spend all of my money on food and drinks every month. All of it.
Here's a picture I actually took. Same area...
So, yes, I live in Iowa. No, it doesn't suck.
Iowan's are incredibly nice, as midwesterners are, and it's amazingly relaxed.
Oh, Iowa City is also one of the best literary towns...in the world...
Dangerou-Dave on
0
Options
PwnanObrienHe's right, life sucks.Registered Userregular
this is the denver art museum. the best part is that it looks like some sort of bizarre optical illusion when you're driving towards it from a particular street.
here's the new wing he designed for the Royal Ontario Museum
Also something that most people don't consider about FLW's stuff: Houses aren't designed to last for more than about 50 years. He was a fine designer and an adequate engineer. The materials are just not up to the demands of existing for such a long time. It doesn't help that a lot of places are poorly maintained.
Not a huge fan of gehry. I like cool buildings, but only when there aren't obvious functional sacrifices made for aesthetics.
Except that the point of them is that we make a lot of assumptions about "obvious" functionalities that aren't necessarily true.
Thank you.
Also, I don't even get "functional" point in architecture. If we would go for something as theoretical and abstract as "function", all buildings would be concrete blocks.
And even on a lower level, I much prefer aesthetics over function. A lot of old houses, for instance, have all kinds of funky corners and odd shaped walls which aren't functional, but it would be oh so nice to live in them.
This also holds for other design areas: I recently bought a coffee table worth about a month salary for me, and it is not nearly as functional as a cardboard box. But it makes me much happier than a cardboard box, because I thoroughly enjoy its aesthetics every time I'm in the living room.
Bottom line: rethink "functionality"
These are all fair points. I think I may have worded my statement badly. Taking Gehry as an example - he builds wacky and interesting buildings, but I get the feeling that his buildings are designed by coming up with a cool form and then fitting a building into it. I feel that he also creates his design with the attitude that structural mechanics exist to figure out how to realize his design, not to impose constraints on it. Whether this is admirable or not is debatable, but it led to MIT suing his firm over problems with the building he designed for them.
I'm not saying that aesthetics aren't important, and I'm a sucker for cool building as much as the next guy, but I don't like seeing aesthetics completely dominate all other considerations.
fshavlak on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
Also something that most people don't consider about FLW's stuff: Houses aren't designed to last for more than about 50 years. He was a fine designer and an adequate engineer. The materials are just not up to the demands of existing for such a long time. It doesn't help that a lot of places are poorly maintained.
What?
When I was a kid I lived in a house built in the very end of the nineteenth century, still standing fine, without structural renovation.
But homes aren't built to last that long. For a house that old to be still standing without renovation is mostly a product of luck.
The monolithic nature of buildings tends to lead people to believe that they should be built to last for centuries at the least. While it's true that concrete and steel can stand for a long time, wood frame structures should be replaced every couple decades.
Kazhiim on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
I suppose living in New England most of my life has given me a lot of circumstantial evidence to the contrary, but that's probably all confirmation bias.
Kazhiim knows what's what. They may still stand but they are not really designed to do so, especially not any more. Things like the White House or other government buildings are designed to stand for centuries (hospitals and stuff are designed this way now, as well). Typical houses are not designed, built or intended to stand for more than about 50 years without major overhauling. This is a lot of why so many of the houses built right after WW2 are in such poor shape now.
Richard M. Nixon on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
Like I said, I'm sure it's confirmation bias.
There's a house in my town that was last remodeled around 1815-25, and was originally constructed a century earlier, but obviously there are plenty of other houses built in the same time period that aren't here anymore so I don't know about them.
And they really shouldn't be built to last forever, anyway. Even if the structure lasts, the style may fade or advances in nonstructural components might require less space, and so forth. Relative to other buildings, a house is a transient thing.
House on the Rock is a place which I feel oddly obliged to visit one day. It's like a fever dream so intense it manifested itself into the physical realm, setting up shop in realities closest thing to Hell on Earth:
Now with the spanking new rail links going ahead in the city, The Shard can be built. And it's fucking hotsauce.
Will be the one of the tallest buildings in Europe when finished, and is the first (and shortest) of a whole new set of skyscrapers planned for London.
Unlike every other major city, London can't really do that Manhattan Island look with the forest of tall buildings because of the landscape and density of urban housing. They're building on structures that are a thousand years old in some places, and you're never more than a mile from a listed building. Room for development is small. But with a whole new subway system going ahead, you can achieve it. Kinda exciting. Also, the Shard is an awesome name.
I think it looks kinda cool. Better than Canary Wharf that's for damn sure.
Though of course, it is about a third of the height of Burj Dubai. So it matters not to anyone living outside the city. Good to see London finally get its fucking act together and following Liverpool and Manchester's example.
If anyone here is possibly gonna be coming over for the 2012 Olympics you'll see a lot of these buildings finished by then.
Speaking of which, this aquatics centre for the games is also architecturally nice. Though it is marred by the (imo) god fucking awful 2012 logo.
The_Scarab on
0
Options
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
Yeah, that logo is fucking horrible. Beautiful building though.
Posts
I live a block away from this area, which...if you guys don't know...we turned our downtown into a pedestrian area, with parking garages and stuff scattered around the fringes, and it's super fuckin' rad. I spend all of my money on food and drinks every month. All of it.
Here's a picture I actually took. Same area...
So, yes, I live in Iowa. No, it doesn't suck.
Iowan's are incredibly nice, as midwesterners are, and it's amazingly relaxed.
Oh, Iowa City is also one of the best literary towns...in the world...
Iowa City is great guys, except for the floods!
Ha, I wrote 'Flood flood lol' after that pic but I accidentally deleted it in an edit.
Yeah, we had a "once in 500 years" flood a year ago...
Too nice if you ask me...
I don't know what you're talking about
this is the denver art museum. the best part is that it looks like some sort of bizarre optical illusion when you're driving towards it from a particular street.
steam
Also, I like art deco and also old-school. How old school? Flying buttresses old school...
That is ludicrous.
The Nakheel Tower, if they decide to continue construction, will be 4,593 ft. tall.
For all the things Ayn Rand got wrong, I think her opinion on architecture was right
here's the new wing he designed for the Royal Ontario Museum
Also something that most people don't consider about FLW's stuff: Houses aren't designed to last for more than about 50 years. He was a fine designer and an adequate engineer. The materials are just not up to the demands of existing for such a long time. It doesn't help that a lot of places are poorly maintained.
actually fuck that ill just move into a cave and steal electricity from whoever lives around
These are all fair points. I think I may have worded my statement badly. Taking Gehry as an example - he builds wacky and interesting buildings, but I get the feeling that his buildings are designed by coming up with a cool form and then fitting a building into it. I feel that he also creates his design with the attitude that structural mechanics exist to figure out how to realize his design, not to impose constraints on it. Whether this is admirable or not is debatable, but it led to MIT suing his firm over problems with the building he designed for them.
I'm not saying that aesthetics aren't important, and I'm a sucker for cool building as much as the next guy, but I don't like seeing aesthetics completely dominate all other considerations.
What?
When I was a kid I lived in a house built in the very end of the nineteenth century, still standing fine, without structural renovation.
The monolithic nature of buildings tends to lead people to believe that they should be built to last for centuries at the least. While it's true that concrete and steel can stand for a long time, wood frame structures should be replaced every couple decades.
There's a house in my town that was last remodeled around 1815-25, and was originally constructed a century earlier, but obviously there are plenty of other houses built in the same time period that aren't here anymore so I don't know about them.
Architecture Lego
Frank llyod Wright Lego
Wisconsin.
Spoiled for your fucking mind:
Dang.
You'll die in your Canadian lego house
It could be the new space suit technology and we are blinded to its wonders by childish ignorance
haha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shard
Now with the spanking new rail links going ahead in the city, The Shard can be built. And it's fucking hotsauce.
Will be the one of the tallest buildings in Europe when finished, and is the first (and shortest) of a whole new set of skyscrapers planned for London.
Unlike every other major city, London can't really do that Manhattan Island look with the forest of tall buildings because of the landscape and density of urban housing. They're building on structures that are a thousand years old in some places, and you're never more than a mile from a listed building. Room for development is small. But with a whole new subway system going ahead, you can achieve it. Kinda exciting. Also, the Shard is an awesome name.
I think it looks kinda cool. Better than Canary Wharf that's for damn sure.
Though of course, it is about a third of the height of Burj Dubai. So it matters not to anyone living outside the city. Good to see London finally get its fucking act together and following Liverpool and Manchester's example.
If anyone here is possibly gonna be coming over for the 2012 Olympics you'll see a lot of these buildings finished by then.
Speaking of which, this aquatics centre for the games is also architecturally nice. Though it is marred by the (imo) god fucking awful 2012 logo.